Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 28 Oct 2009 21:06 On 10/28/09 1:41 PM, in article heGdnSTUxcG3DXXXnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: > > "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message > news:2t2he51qommtr6sieuivu1dkhur7ngoeem(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:59:37 -0400, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in >> <oncfe59jih38kcp5bqa9pe7lfibtobh2tc(a)4ax.com>: >> >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0700, John Navas >>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>>> Perhaps there are good reasons. Like it's a pointless and meaningless >>>> exercise. Like there are many much better forums. You might as well >>>> argue about exhibiting on supermarket bulletin boards. >>> >>> More like you are afraid to enter because you can't handle criticism. >>> >>> We know that you are willing to participate in pointless and >>> meaningless exercises. We've read your posts. >> >> How childish. > > John, you have worn out "childish" as an argument some time ago. > > He is an idiot, proven!
From: nospam on 28 Oct 2009 21:07 In article <0u2he5ds6892skja3413uuf2qmgg319c52(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > What real photographers really do is take photographs, > not try to boast about their equipment. based on your endless posts about your equipment and how much better it is than a dslr, we know into which category you fall.
From: nospam on 28 Oct 2009 21:07 In article <633he5pfrta9hc07t1q8ehmi4n3118g8eg(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >For example, a camera with a larger sensor can take a > >noisefree picture in lower light than a smaller sensor. That's > >a law of physics. > > Simply not true. "provide proof if you wish to be taken seriously"
From: George Kerby on 28 Oct 2009 21:07 On 10/28/09 1:53 PM, in article mn4he59mngjfa296oa3e4nb9630a0nm6m2(a)4ax.com, "Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:37:04 -0400, "Neil Harrington" > <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: > >> >> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:hc9vd3$7ec$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>> "Miles Bader" <miles(a)gnu.org> wrote in message >>>> news:buo8wex1oxp.fsf(a)dhlpc061.dev.necel.com... >>>>> Michael <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> writes: >>>>>>> We know why, of course: you're the infamous P&S Troll. We simply don't >>>>>>> know specifically why you are a troll, or why you chose to target this >>>>>>> group in particular. Nor do we care, actually. >>>>>> I was wondering how many responses I'd read before someone recognized >>>>>> our infamous friend. >>>>> Using one of his standard trolling techniques too. He may be an idiot >>>>> when it comes to photography, but he's actually pretty skillful at >>>>> trolling... >>>> >>>> I wouldn't say he's particularly skillful at it, but he does have an >>>> effective (if transparent) procedure for it. The procedure is simple >>>> enough that I think anyone could do it; it requires little if any skill: >>>> >>>> 1. Enter a newsgroup making any ordinary trollish comment >>>> >>>> 2. Crudely insult anyone who replies, while accusing *them* of being a >>>> troll >>>> >>>> Simple as that. >>> >>> Why are so many unable to resist? Well, a handful continually rise to the >>> bait. >> >> Because it becomes kind of a fun thing. >> >> And note, the P&S troll isn't getting anywhere, at least by the classic >> definition for trolls. I realize of course that the definition has become >> muddled into something like "anyone who says something that annoys me," but >> the classic troll was one who started a squabble among newsgroup users and >> then sat back to watch the fun. The best of the trolls could do this with a >> single post -- and then never add another word, while the newsgroup regulars >> argued with increasing ire and fury amongst themselves. The troll who could >> do that was a troll for whom one had a certain grudging admiration. >> >> This P&S troll, on the other hand, works hard at what the does, and to >> relatively little effect. He slaves away at his keyboard, post after post >> after post, day after day. Gradually people tire of him and ignore him. >> Discussions and arguments may continue, but they have less and less to do >> with him. Now he's laboring over his 300-word posts and getting 10-word >> replies. >> >> This is a failed troll. >> > > > Are you aware that you and others of your ilk have now proved yourselves > beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and ignorant > trolls, again? > > Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread hijacking > trolls. Catch-22. If you stayed on topic you wouldn't be a troll. Continue > going off topic and you have precisely proved my point. > > Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it. > > Read it again. Here it is again for your perusal. Can you answer it without > your usual off-topic trolling? The challenge is on. (Guess who's going to > win. Once a troll, always a troll. Asking a troll to not act like a troll > is like asking a slug to not travel by use of its exuded slime layer > discharge.) > >> >> I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments >> on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered >> as part of their camera gear. >> >> There have been outlandish claims being made. Mostly by dSLR proponents >> over what can and cannot be done with the myriad P&S cameras available for >> the last decade. Yet, when pressed for clarity, you find out they've never >> even been near the cameras they are commenting on so strongly, assuredly, >> and adamantly with their self-appointed authoritative and seemingly (to >> themselves) concrete stance. They will loudly and incessantly claim that >> some camera does not have a feature, when in fact a large range of cameras, >> sometimes all of those styles of cameras do indeed have that feature or >> capability. They would instantly know this if they would only go out and >> test it for themselves with real cameras. But no, to them they have >> imagined something about some equipment that they've never touched which is >> nothing but a total fabrication in their own minds. Believing their >> imaginations as if it is some kind of fact. Like any psychotic religious >> zealot would. >> >> What causes them to do this? I've never commented on nor given advice about >> anything in life other than that with which I have had first-hand knowledge >> and experience of my own in that field. If I haven't personally tested >> something for myself, then I am in no position to make comments about it. >> Even reading about something doesn't mean what I am reading is true >> representation of whatever might be in question. I MUST test things for >> myself before I feel I can comment on anything with any sense of authority >> whatsoever. I also never strongly rely on some "credible"(?) 3rd-party's >> review of photography equipment. I learned long ago after having purchased >> equipment that even those well-meaning reviewers failed to understand how >> to use a camera, a feature of that camera, or other equipment properly. Or >> their simplified testing methods to begin with had huge faults in them. >> (GIGO) Which I only discovered later when my findings didn't match their >> findings, and I started to wonder why. Their testing methods were to blame. >> >> So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on things >> that they have no real knowledge about? >> >> Are they just psychotic trolls? And I'm not using the term "psychotic" >> pejoratively. I believe they really are psychotic if they can so adamantly >> believe what they say, when in fact, reality and genuine experience proves >> them out to be in complete error. If so, if that's all they are, psychotic >> trolls, they seem to be wall-to-wall in these newsgroups. Far more in >> abundance than those who have genuine experience and knowledge about the >> subjects at hand. > > We all wait with bated breath for your non-troll response. (Apostrophe left > off of "bated" to see how many apostrophe-trolls are in abundance.) > > Since you failed to address or answer the question, there it is again. Any > further off-topic trolling without addressing the question and you will > prove, beyond all doubt, that you are nothing but an ignorant troll, again. > It's just that simple. > > Sucks to be you, doesn't it. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........(snore).......zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZz z...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....zzzzzzzzz.......(p-p-p-ph-h-h-a-a-a-r-r-rt-t-t)....... ....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....(yawn)...zzzzzzzzzzz....
From: David J. Littleboy on 28 Oct 2009 21:09
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> >For example, a camera with a larger sensor can take a >> >noisefree picture in lower light than a smaller sensor. That's >> >a law of physics. >> >> Simply not true. > > "provide proof if you wish to be taken seriously" It's hard to provide proof if you're dead wrong... -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |